SVB issue like many other regional banks lending to technology sector are bad risk management and risky lending. The key word is "Silicon Valley" which is basically startups and ventures. Being left out of regulation for large banks such banks focused on lending to tech sector unicorns are under supervised risk institutions. Tech startups loans are high risk assets. The leverage and capital ratios should be the highest for such institutions even compared to large banks that run diversified lending programs. The ultimate problem for SVB was too much long duration and therefore risky loans to speculative technology against steady shorter term government securities and housing assets. With banking culture of excessive risk taking in uncertain and speculative assets with higher potential return and less interest in stable cash like assets with low return, SVB management had no choice but fail in sudden change of its deposit base. While almost everybody blames Fed and rates, SVB management is the only factor behind its collapse.

The market forces seem extremely fast to capitalize on opportunity to make money on the event story which just proves the case for some sort of orchestrated scenario pumped up on all fronts about the collapse of banking system and contagion that has nothing to do how big banks are managed and how safe they are. In my opinion the risk is overblown to the level of market volatility trading.$Citigroup(C)$